[KPhotoAlbum] Very experimental image-grouping patch

Tero Tilus tero at tilus.net
Wed Nov 28 22:04:23 CET 2007


Lovely!  Finally somebody is turning this grouping-vapor into real
code!  :)

2007-11-28 18:11, Paul Fleischer:
> Yep, the only question remaining is who is going to be the master. I
> would prefer the .jpg, as it is the one shown when browsing, but I
> guess that the .cr2 is more logical as "master" :-)

That brings us to the natural question.  What is the concept we are
trying to model with this relationship?  

Concept 1, "this image is derived from that one"

What first comes into my mind (from what has been spoken here before)
is the ability to say "this image is derived from that one".  But then
it would naturally be many-to-many relationship as one image may be
derived from several other images (multiple shots stitched together to
form a panorama) and several images may be derived from one image (raw
master and several differently processed derivatives).  If this way is
taken, terms "master" and "derivative" have a natural meaning.  Also
the implementation should allow us to proceed towards the described
many-to-many relationship, even if the first release version would be
non-nested one-to-many.

Concept 2, "series of exposures"

But there is also another relation concept, "these photos are all
exposures from the same arrangement".  This comes imho pretty close to
what Paul has implemented.  If this really is what we are going to
pursue, I'd suggest (and that's the most I can do, as I have no time
to invest in implementing this) that the grouping would not be done
using parent, but with assigning images a (KPA internal) group id and
"hidden" flag.  That way one could group pics and select none, one or
several "completed" versios, which would be shown by default.  Also
I'd suggest we call them "groups" or "sets" of photos.

How to present relation?

(i've really got nothing to add to what has already been discussed in
this thread, the ideas are good)

How to tag?

How (if at all) these relations should affect tagging?  Should we
maybe have "Annotate Derivatives/Group" bound to Ctrl-3?  It would
take the selected items and all their derivatives (or selected items
and all items belonging to same groups with them respectively) and do
"Annotate Multiple Items at a Time".

What to show?

I think the question of how KPA should select what to show is mostly
separated from the image relation concepts.  How (if at all) should
the relationships affect image visibility?  And why should I be bound
to select one and only one image to show from a group or a tree of
derivatives?

And then, just to piss you off...  ;)

Do we really need groups or derivatives?  How far could we get with
simple "hidden" flag and a pinch of magic to assign resonable defaults
(show only .jpg if you have several files differing only by extension,
etc.) upon scan?

Do we really need "hiding"?  Wouldn't tagging do the job?  If one
wants to show only "final" versions, just narrow down to "production
quality" tag.  ;)

-- 
Tero Tilus ## 050 3635 235 ## http://www.tilus.net/koti/tero/


More information about the KPhotoAlbum mailing list